Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2016, 05:53 PM   #121
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,909
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
. . . how to use hyperfocal calcs on a lens that doesn't have any dof markings, and a short distance rotation...
Presuming you mean: set a pre-focused HFD without reference to that 'sloppy' ring thingy --

QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
. . . yes, you can set hyperfocal distance with any lens, with or without a distance scale . . .. Simply go manual and pre-focus (using the VF) on something, anything, at the proper distance. DOF will still be whatever the aperture allows and a DOF chart for the sensor and lens FL will offer a clue as to what the results ought'a be.
If I expect Bubba to appear next to that there fire hydrant, or somewhere else at the same distance, I simply focus on the fire hydrant. I don't even care what the exact distance reading is or even if there's a focus ring at all because the lens is pre-focused for the anticipated shot. I might even lock-out AF if shooting through a foreground that could later cause miss-focusing if active. That sure speeds up AF delay time!

At that point in time I may either use DOF preview mode to check or refine focus in the surrounding area . . . or consult a handy DOF chart and the focus index mark on that 'sloppy' focus ring thingy . . . or maybe just rely on past experience.

That's exactly the way I'd set up for CIF too. Manually pre-set the focus point (the HFD in effect). Then I'd close my eyes, hold down the shutter button and wait for the subject to trip the shutter when it came into focus. DOF would be pre-ordained by the aperture chosen for the exposure.

Doesn't get much more automatic than that. Of course you can't use a lens that reports itself to be AF but, hey, folks complain about AF speed and accuracy anyway.

How do you like CIF with the Canon?

04-18-2016, 06:10 PM   #122
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
i've never owned a canon still camera, and i never will, so i have no idea how well this canon auto-depth thing works... it's for noobs anyway, more here fwiw:
Depth-of-field - Canon Professional Network

---------- Post added 04-18-16 at 06:20 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
It is harder.
if you have a decent modern camera, it's a complete waste of time.

that's why lenses don't have dof marks anymore.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I'm still not convinced that "chimping" is much of a solution other than perhaps for being a slower and less-exact version of the calculators to be used if you don't have an older lens..
magnification in liveview is not chimping, it's how you set an accurate focus point.

focusing with the aperture is a fail.
04-18-2016, 07:27 PM   #123
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 591
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
if you have a decent modern camera, it's a complete waste of time.

that's why lenses don't have dof marks anymore.
Zeiss Batis 18mm 2.8. Released 2016. Zeiss says: The ZEISS Batis autofocus lenses were specially developed for mirrorless full-frame system cameras from Sony. The lenses are fully compatible with all E-mount cameras and offer not only fast, quiet autofocus, but also protection against dust and spray water. For creative photography, the innovative OLED display shows the distance and depth of field to ensure that the focusing range can always be perfectly set.

ZEISS Batis 2.8/18 - fullframe autofocus lens for Sony | ZEISS International
04-18-2016, 08:20 PM   #124
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
if you have a decent modern camera, it's a complete waste of time.
that's why lenses don't have dof marks anymore.

magnification in liveview is not chimping, it's how you set an accurate focus point.
focusing with the aperture is a fail.
Obviously we differ in opinion. I don't see any point to comparing opinions.

04-19-2016, 07:24 AM   #125
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,457
Wonderfully Entertaining......
04-19-2016, 09:04 AM   #126
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
Zeiss Batis 18mm 2.8. Released 2016. Zeiss says: The ZEISS Batis autofocus lenses were specially developed for mirrorless full-frame system cameras from Sony. The lenses are fully compatible with all E-mount cameras and offer not only fast, quiet autofocus, but also protection against dust and spray water. For creative photography, the innovative OLED display shows the distance and depth of field to ensure that the focusing range can always be perfectly set.

ZEISS Batis 2.8/18 - fullframe autofocus lens for Sony | ZEISS International
correct, no dof marks on the barrel of those lenses.

we've already talked about those lenses in this thread, and why they don't apply to the situation of trying to focus with the aperture ring.
04-19-2016, 10:14 AM   #127
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 591
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
correct, no dof marks on the barrel of those lenses.

we've already talked about those lenses in this thread, and why they don't apply to the situation of trying to focus with the aperture ring.
The point is that some very fine modern lenses do have DOF scales. They are displayed electronically rather than painted on a barrel. Your blanket claim that modern lenses do not have DOF scales because they are useless is incorrect.
04-19-2016, 12:55 PM   #128
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,909
What? Ya mean a 'modern' lens checks for an exposure-commanded aperture and then displays DOF data derived from a sloppy ol' reference file that's been around as a paper, no-batteries-required chart for how long? Who'd a guessed. Marketing'll do anything for a buck.

Next thing ya know we'll be walkin' around with telephones the size of a 5-cent candy bar in our pocket so we can vote for the next Elvis look-alike star.

04-19-2016, 01:28 PM   #129
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
The point is that some very fine modern lenses do have DOF scales. They are displayed electronically rather than painted on a barrel. Your blanket claim that modern lenses do not have DOF scales because they are useless is incorrect.
no, you are wrong about that just like you were wrong when you claimed that there is no such thing as a plane of focus

it's all been explained already in this thread.

---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 01:56 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
What? Ya mean a 'modern' lens checks for an exposure-commanded aperture and then displays DOF data derived from a sloppy ol' reference file that's been around as a paper, no-batteries-required chart for how long? Who'd a guessed. Marketing'll do anything for a buck.
canon auto-depth? amen to that, lol... it sounds like the camera measures the depth of the dof, based on the two points you give it with af, then applies whatever aperture chart slop it has in the reference file... if you are using auto-depth, you are also using af, so the measured/fixed dof is riding on top of an af measurement of unknown accuracy, that's refreshed with every shot.

contrast that with the o.p., reh, etc., who want to take one semi-measured focus point only, throw some sloppy unmeasured dof at it, and then take multiple photos, without re-focusing on objects that have moved within the dof region.
04-19-2016, 02:01 PM   #130
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,457
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
no such thing as a plane of focus
Is the plane of focus another version of Schroedinger's fabled cat?
04-19-2016, 02:57 PM - 1 Like   #131
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 591
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
no, you are wrong about that just like you were wrong when you claimed that there is no such thing as a plane of focus
Exactly where was I wrong in pointing out the fact that certain modern lenses have depth of field scales when you claimed out that none do? Facts, man.

At no point in the discussions have I suggested that there is no such thing as a plane of focus. In fact, I have consistently stated that the plane of focus exists- as a plane. A plane has no depth. That is the scientific definition of a plane, and is the way the plane of focus is treated in the science of optics. I will say once more that DOF exists on either side of the plane of focus, not within the plane itself.

I can't figure out whether your complete misinterpretation of my comments and those of others stems from incomprehension or deceit. In either case, that combined with the frequently nasty tone of your comments is doing a great job of destroying your credibility. Carry on!

Last edited by John Poirier; 04-19-2016 at 05:28 PM.
04-19-2016, 05:12 PM   #132
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,015
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
is doing a doing a great job of destroying your credibility.
His ... what?
04-19-2016, 08:39 PM   #133
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
Is the plane of focus another version of Schroedinger's fabled cat?
lol, it certainly seems to be so for some people in this discussion.
04-19-2016, 08:50 PM   #134
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,909
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
take one semi-measured focus point only, throw some sloppy unmeasured dof at it, and then take multiple photos, without re-focusing on objects that have moved within the dof region.
Whoa there!

You're making entirely unwarranted assumptions as to how knowledge of DOF/HFD principles would be used in practice and how sloppily it would be applied by the photographer.

No one's claiming they'd refuse to refine focus using the best means available in point of time or that they'd not prefer to use a well calibrated AF system if the circumstances allowed. Only that they'd prefer to use well established technique and data to pre-focus a lens to prepare for a predictable future event. (PPPPPP!)

Nor that a pre-focused point wouldn't be most carefully selected and determined with absolute precision. I've actually done that with a tape measure in the field while shooting for forensic-like purposes and can assure you that properly used, DOF charts produce reliable and predictable outcomes. (That's best practice when it takes days to get film back to "chimp it".)

And please provide some objective evidence that the information presented on traditional lens focus rings is inherently unreliable and/or too imprecise for its intended purpose - more so than the oft lamented inaccuracy of 'modern' AF lenses and cameras for that matter.
04-19-2016, 09:26 PM   #135
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
Exactly where was I wrong in pointing out the fact that certain modern lenses have depth of field scales when you claimed out that none do? Facts, man.
i said "dof marks", and backed it up a second time with "no dof marks on the barrel of those lenses", which has been the subject of this discussion for the entire thread.

you came in and effectively claimed that "dof scales"/calculations/measurements done by the lens was the same thing as somebody reading sloppy barrel markings combined with inaccurate focusing, trying to calculate it themselves, i disagreed.

QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
At no point in the discussions have I suggested that there is no such thing as a plane of focus. In fact, I have consistently stated that the plane of focus exists- as a plane. A plane has no depth. That is the scientific definition of a plane, and is the way the plane of focus is treated in the science of optics.
you were asked to back that claim up with an example of a physical plane that has no depth... mee had to do it for you, lol

i claimed that perfect focus could be measured, and i provided a 100% crop proving how much of it was sharp, maybe ~4ft. in that case, and then both steve and i calculated it to be somewhere around 71-80ft of sharpness(??), using the stupid dof calculators

you came in and claimed that sharpness in a focal plane didn't exist, despite the 100% crop proving that it did, and then contradicted yourself by claiming that, well, sharpness could actually be calculated after all with a dof calculator, which is defined as: "Depth of field refers to the section of a photograph that appears to be in sharp focus"

---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 09:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
No one's claiming they'd refuse to refine focus using the best means available in point of time or that they'd not prefer to use a well calibrated AF system if the circumstances allowed. Only that they'd prefer to use well established technique and data to pre-focus a lens to prepare for a predictable future event. (PPPPPP!)
the o.p., reh, and others in this thread think that they can set one focus, and it'll be enough sharpness for when the subject moves, within the range of dof, without re-focusing on the subject.

not the same thing.

as for modern vs. old, if i have enough time, i'll always use manual everything over af/auto anything, and i don't need a dof calculator to do it... ymmv, especially for anyone using an ovf instead of liveview.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, barrel, button, camera, distance, dof, dslr, field, film, focus, front, lens, lenses, magnification, markings, measure, move, nail, oof, photography, pic, picture, sharpness, sharpness in dof, shutter, subject, train
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where is the line in between RAW developmemt and PP? Drizzt Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 16 05-20-2015 10:00 AM
The Age of the Standalone Still Camera is Coming to and End interested_observer General Photography 82 03-01-2015 04:06 PM
One interesting feature of the DC motors (and SDM in general) bdery Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 01-08-2015 12:07 PM
DOF calc, Hyperfocal calc in camera. schmik Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 05-20-2009 10:27 PM
End of the Line (in More Ways than One) Mike Cash Post Your Photos! 13 01-03-2008 01:40 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top